Far too many Americans have it in their heads that racism makes a home
on the right wing of our political spectrum.

It is the political left, however, that has presided over the decline
of our inner cities. It is people from left-wing circles of thought that
equate poverty and minorities, oftentimes using the terms "black"
and "poor" interchangeably. This mindset, of course, is the impetus
behind "affirmative action" policies for minorities in general
and blacks in particular. Leftists assume that all blacks need a hand, even
if their last name is Cosby or Winfrey. It is also the left that assumes
that black children can't learn proper English and should therefore not
be criticized for speaking "ebonics." And it is the left that
says our children shouldn't be held to the same academic or ethical standards
of "normal" people.

Luminaries of the left, led by people like Jesse Jackson, say we even
need to rethink thousands of years of western jurisprudence because black
men can't resist the sort of behavior that lands them in jail. While racism
might actually play a role in higher conviction rates among black felons,
most of those men had to do something to land in court in the first place.
Clearly, leftists see black people as "less than" and "regrettable."

Now leftists have gone even further into the muck that is racism. When
Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, his former co-worker
Anita Hill came forward to accuse him of talking about things that were
inappropriate in a work situation, especially between a boss and his subordinate.
Then-Congresswomen Barbara Boxer and Patricia Schroeder led a deafening
call to attempt to deny Thomas his appointment to become an associate justice.
At the time, racism didn't come to my mind despite Justice Thomas's reference
to the campaign against him as a "high-tech lynching." Since I
am not one to look for racism under every rock, I chalked Thomas's opponents'
tactics up to part of an ideological war.

But that was B.C.: Before Clinton. Now, President Clinton stands accused
of rape. Gone are the Coke cans of the Thomas controversy. There are no
pubic hairs or no porno movie reviews that dogged Clarence Thomas - this
concerns bare, naked, criminal rape. Where is Senator Boxer now? Where is
Patricia Schroeder? Why aren't the feminists storming Capitol Hill demanding
"blood" like they did after hearing Anita Hill's accusations?
Is this just another salvo in an ideological war or something more insidious?

In times past, white men could do horrible things and get away with them
while blacks could be accused of less and catch hell. Even without knowing
for sure if Clinton or Thomas are guilty, the way the accusations are treated
speaks volumes about the who is seen as guilty and who is not. A black man
alleged to have talked about the size of his sex organ and his sexual prowess
with no corroboration sent feminists into hysterics. When a white man was
accused of a violent rape with actual physical evidence of an assault, however,
feminists turned a deaf ear toward the accuser.

Ideological? Maybe. But in light of liberal attitudes that blacks can't
live up to the same standards as white Americans, it is highly likely that
these liberals believe a black man probably did do what that woman said
he did. "Everybody knows" that black men can't control their animal
sexuality (or, as Jesse Jackson and his posse might suggest, their antisocial
urges).

As much as the opinion-makers might like to paint the conservative movement
as the modern home of racism, the double-standard of the left looks a lot
like the same double-standard we used to see in the Jim Crow jurisprudence
of our not-distant-enough past.

###

(James Coleman is a member of the African-American leadership network
Project 21 and a former member of the Black Panthers. He can be reached
at [email protected].)

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their
author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.